Gardiner Richardson | Agenda

Lost in translation

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:51:54 +0100

What would you think if someone asked you to ‘please bump your head carefully’? Or to ‘leave your values at the front desk’? These are just two examples of a phenomenon known as ‘Chinglish’ – where English phrases take on somewhat comic meaning due to being lost in translation from Chinese.

The subject of many websites and humorous quotes has now taken a far greater significance for authorities in Shanghai, which has just announced a major programme to clean up these phrases which appear on signs across the city.

With Shanghai due to host the World Expo next year, there is a feeling that widespread examples of Chinglish could prove a major embarrassment. As a result hordes of students are now scouring the city to report any incidents they find. Owners of signs will then be requested to make the appropriate changes.

In a way it’s the written equivalent of what often happens when non-native speakers of a language try to translate words and phrases directly without a richer grasp of meaning. It’s not hard to imagine that there are many similar comic incidents that happen across the continent every summer as the Brits travel abroad.

The difference here of course is that there is something much more permanent about the written word. While spoken language is subject to the same rules and structures as the written word, it is also a much freer environment in which to communicate. No-one spell checks your speech, or makes sure your commas and semi-colons are in the right place.

In a two-way dialogue these mis-meanings are much more easily understood and have only a momentary existence. When they’re written on a sign for all to see they become much more permanent and open to scrutiny.

It may seem a long way from these obvious and extreme examples in Shanghai to the world of marketing communications, but in fact the parallels are there for all to see. While English and Chinese may be two very dramatically different languages, there are often similar gulfs between the language that an organisation uses and the language that its customers or stakeholders understand.

The Plain English Campaign would no doubt approve of the work done in Shanghai to avoid any confusion for the English-speaking target audiences of the signs, but it would also agree that there is much to be done with the way that English is used among its native speakers.

It’s questionable whether the majority of people in this country would find it harder to understand one of the Chinglish signs or one of the many examples awarded a Golden Bull by the Plain English campaign.

So by all means have a chuckle at Chinglish, but make sure you have a long hard look at your own communications first.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

Facebook v Friendship. Round 1.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:31:37 +0100

A funny thing happened to me the other day. I sent a parcel - as you do - to a friend that has recently given birth to a bouncing baby boy. This you may think is nothing out of the ordinary however when I didn’t hear back for a fortnight to confirm said receipt of gift (and following a lot of cussing about the Royal Mail whom I had unfairly accused of losing it) I was at a bit of a loss about whether she had received it.

Not wanting to be a pest I thought it best to maybe sent a friendly post to her via Facebook just to ask how things were and when would be a good time for me to pop down (I say pop, she lives a four hour drive away) and see the family en masse. Imagine my horror then when I logged on to see a note from her husband chastising me for not commenting on the photographs of their – very beautiful – tot that he had uploaded over a week before.

Now I hold my hands up and say that I am not the world’s best Facebooker. If I’m perfectly honest I don’t care what dress some girl I didn’t particularly like at school chose to marry her childhood sweetheart in, but I do use it as a means of keeping in touch with close friends who may be travelling or living away on a fairly regular basis.

However what I took exception to in this case was the fact that I had seemingly tipped a friend’s husband (not even the friend herself!) over the edge by not responding to a posting on my wall that I didn’t even know was there. Even if I had known it was there I would have rather called her to say that the aforementioned babe was beautiful as opposed to telling 100 other people I don’t know it is. It got me thinking are ‘walls’ really a measure of friendship these days?

To be honest I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that Facebook isn’t really about maintaining genuine friendships, but rather about ‘friendship life’ – a meta friendship as it were that only exists within the confines of a social networking page.

Too lazy to ring your mate? Why not throw a sheep at them instead? Can’t be bothered to send a birthday card? Don’t worry - you can just type a quick “happy birthday” posting to them. Worried that you haven’t got anything in common with your old school friends? Invite them to do a “What Sex and the City character are you?” quiz to fill the awkward silence.

Research is showing that more and more people (especially between the ages of 18-24) are deactivating their Facebook profiles in favour of other forms of new media. Twitter it seems is one of the ones highest up the tally chart as it doesn’t require a legion of followers unlike FB where if you don’t have 500 friends you are made to feel a social outcast.

I would like to think that in the same way people - like me - are starting to re-evaluate the reasons as to why they visit Facebook and maybe see that instead of being used as a convenient excuse for not speaking to someone directly it can actually be used as means of complementing and even strengthening existing friendships.

As for my friend’s husband, well I think I have managed to calm the ridiculous storm somewhat and we have even agreed a date for me to go down to visit...I think we have come to the conclusion that no matter how great his photos are sometimes there can be no substitute for seeing someone in person.

Posted by: Jennie Whitell

Cricket is all about timing

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:22:59 +0100

On the eve of the final test in this summer’s Ashes it looks worryingly as if it will be back to business as usual as an Australian team looks to be in the ascendant while their English counterparts struggle for form and confidence.

In amongst all the usual banter there was a fascinating moment just a week or so ago, which suggests that when it comes to timing Australia may be winning the war of words as well as the battle at the crease.

We are all familiar with a world of leaked dossiers and where the news in the morning consists not so much of what’s already happened but who’s going to be saying what during the day at a number of press conferences.

It’s not a world that is normally associated with cricket and not with the Australian team who have built their brand far more on a rather direct and plain-speaking approach.

Yet the publication of a dossier compiled by former Australia batsman Justin Langer created quite a stir. Apparently submitted to his former captain Ricky Ponting at the start of the series, it works its way through the England team line up with some choice language and some all too unflattering observations.

Apparently the primary audience was the Australian team, designed to give them insight and confidence going in to the series with a team England captain Andrew Strauss had (perhaps unwisely in retrospect) described as missing the aura of previous touring Aussie teams.

But was it really? The timing for a start of the release of the dossier was perfect, coming hot on the heels of a humiliating defeat at Headingley, rubbing plenty of salt into open wounds. From a communications perspective the timing of this ‘leak’ couldn’t have been better.

What’s really interesting though is that earlier this summer Cricket Australia announced it had banned its players from ‘sledging’ – a technique whereby verbal (and normally insulting though often also humorous) banter is aimed at opposition players in an effort to unsettle them. Something in which the Aussies are world masters.

It’s been frustrating for them, no doubt about it as their natural game plan is disrupted and the spotlight is on them and their behaviour.

At which point Langer’s dossier suddenly looks like a master stroke that he couldn’t have played better with the bat – the team aren’t allowed to sledge, so what does he do? He takes on the whole England team, not just in the relative privacy of the cricket pitch but in England’s national press.

It’s the ultimate sledge. The impact on an England team desperate for success remains to be seen, but you have to have a little sneaky admiration. Maybe it would be better to go back to the good old days.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

Is the extra mile sometimes a mile too far?

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:25:20 +0100

It’s no secret that public sector organisations looking for new ways to improve the services they provide have been looking at the private sector for inspiration for years.

And there’s no reason why they shouldn’t. Which local authority, hospital trust or police authority wouldn’t settle for the kind of customer loyalty displayed by those who consume Apple, Starbucks or Nike?

But is the extra mile sometimes a mile too far when trying to treat the tax payer as a paying customer?

Devon and Cornwall Constabulary’s recent move to improve the service it provides is a perfect case in point. The south coast force is handing 1,000 suspected criminals customer satisfaction forms as part of a pilot scheme to improve its detention facilities.

While spending a night in the cells, her Majesty’s guests are asked 41 questions about food, cleanliness and reading material – including whether books and magazines were supplied on request. They are also asked to comment on whether their cell was clean enough, at the right temperature and if they were offered a shower or a telephone call.

This is clearly a progressive force (it featured in my blog on April 12 (check out http://www.gardiner-richardson.com/agenda/view_article.php?id=24) and its efforts have to be admired. But is it always correct to solicit opinions, engage people and make them feel like valued customers? Where do we draw the line?

I guess many of us would expect the line to be drawn with people who are suspected of breaking the law. I realise that suspects have not been found guilty and a proportion will be released without charge. But do police need to offer a hotel style service? I’m no expert, but I imagine that the officers have enough cause to justify an arrest - should they really be checking whether suspects feel clean and relaxed before bedding down for the night or that they have been supplied with the latest edition of GQ? Is it not enough that officers rely on the common sense that their experience already provides them – be polite and perhaps even offer a cup of tea?

Before embarking on a consultation exercise to support service improvement, we must be certain that the service needs improving. Why does Devon and Cornwall need to improve its service to suspects?

Obviously it doesn’t want to further inconvenience members of the public who are held and then released without charge. However, I imagine that these people will be mostly upset at having their liberty removed in the first place and no amount of showers or copies of Shoot take away this bitter taste. Crucially – if there is a high enough number of people arrested and released without charge – the force probably needs to look at why so many arrests which do not result in a conviction are occurring, rather than customer service.

Or is it that the force is concerned about the perception criminals have about the services it provides? Should it care? As long as officers remain professional at all times and do not mistreat their charges, should they really be going the extra mile to ensure that those who have broken the law are suitably entertained and saved from boredom? Should they really be letting them have their say?

Posted by: Matt Forster

Old versus new in the battle for a scoop

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:21:31 +0100

Around mid morning on Friday 31 July the words Sir Bobby Robson and RIP started to appear on Twitter. It seemed that once again the social web had broken the news of the sad demise of a celebrity. There have been several instances where this happened with the most notable occurrence being the recent departure of Michael Jackson.

According to the online specialists at PR Week, analysis has appeared to confirm that Twitter was first to break the news, if only by a few minutes. At 10.18am Robert MN Harvey was the first to tweet with an update stating that the football legend had passed away at his home in Co.Durham.

The Yorkshire Evening Post website was then hot on Mr. Harvey’s heels with an article timed at 10.22am - the first of the so-called conventional media to publish the story. Two minutes later the news was on Bobby Robson’s Wikipedia entry but it seems that Sky News did not put out the first bulletin until 10.25am, with BBC Radio One adding it to their news programme at 10.30am.

Whilst there will be some that say that this is trivial given that ultimately within a very limited timeframe the main media channels had all covered the story - and to a great extent I would agree with them - one can’t help but think that such a rapid response from Twitter signals the shape of the things to come where scoops are concerned.

Despite still being ‘hot of the press’ so to speak, by the time most channels had started to cover it there were reams and reams of messages already logged on Twitter and not even an hour later friends of mine reported being sent a request to sign up to a Bobby Robson in memoriam site on Facebook.

Whilst the appropriateness and timing of this in itself is another debate altogether, it is indeed a sure sign of the times that news channels which employ some of the keenest minds and best correspondents in the country are being pipped at the post by a freelance journalist sat on his laptop in office at home.

They think it’s all over. It is now.

Posted by: Jennie Whitell

News Corp will be watched very carefully as it announces plans to charge for online content

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:18:16 +0100

It was a debate that came and went in the early days of the commercial web and now it seems it is back with a vengeance – to charge or not to charge for online news content.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp has announced it will be introducing costs for its online news as following losses of £2bn it looks to new ways to generate income.

It’s been a long running battle for news providers since the very early days when the mantra ‘content is king’ used to echo up and down the corridors of dot.com entrepreneurs’ offices.

Some papers made an early attempt to charge for content only to quickly change their strategy and there have always been some who continue to charge for premium content or additional access to, for example, archives.

But one of the overall wonders of the World Wide Web has been the way it has forced ‘traditional’ content providers to adopt new models of distribution – which has largely resulted in a free content bonanza for the rest of us.

Suddenly we can read daily newspapers from around the world, free of charge – want to know what’s happening in Alice Springs? Or in fact pretty much any country anywhere in the world? It’s all there.

Advertising has typically been the goose that’s laid this particular golden egg, websites have been funded by a variety of advertising and sponsorship deals, but there’s also no doubt that keeping a competitive edge in the world of free content puts real pressure on many publications.

With the current recession sending advertising revenue spiralling downwards it’s perhaps no surprise that News Corp is looking at this new move. Content needs to be generated from somewhere, by someone and if it’s your day job you’re going to want to be paid for it.

Whether it works or not remains to be seen, no doubt many other media channels will be watching with eager eyes and calculators at the ready.

But maybe, just maybe we might be standing on the outskirts of a more fundamental shift in the way news is reported. With the rise of free blogging sites, cameras and videos on every mobile phone in the land, armed with our microblogs and our endless ability to comment on every posting, text in our views to every radio and TV programme are we about to witness the rise of user-generated news?

It’s pretty much already out there, all it needs is a site to aggregate the content and make sense of it for visitors – a brave new media world indeed and one which some may argue we are already heading toward at a frightening pace.

Yes journalism is a skill and yes the objective nature of news reporting is important, but when traditional models are visibly creaking in the winds of change, when more and more exclusives are being broken online and when the openness of the web enables previously unheard voices to speak up, it is a question worth asking.

If we don’t think it’s a good thing then perhaps we need to rethink our expectations of what we get for free – if nothing else the lessons of the last 12 months should have taught us that there is normally a hidden cost that may only become evident further down the line.

To subscribe or not to subscribe – you decide, but don’t forget it was your decision.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

A cut too far?

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:01:34 +0100

Whilst the methods PR professionals have at their disposal to measure the success of a campaign or story are many, varied and evolving all the time with digital and social media, the use of AVE as a core metric still remains relatively common place.

AVE stands for Advertising Value Equivalent and is a measure the PR industry has traditionally used to evaluate coverage – in simple terms it’s based on calculating the cost of buying advertising space equivalent to the coverage achieved through editorial.

Undoubtedly there are a number of benefits to using AVE. The first is that it demonstrates simply and quickly how much coverage a client has received within a given time frame. In a tough economic climate where financial departments are often leading MD’s, this is indeed increasingly important as it serves to present clients with a clear return on investment.

AVE also can be used to open up a dialogue with those who might not be familiar with how marketing and public relations works day to day. When, for example, justifying the cost of a campaign, a managing director might not be concerned with the number of magazines that the article appears in, but they will be impressed when they discover that a quarter of a page in Vogue has earned the in excess of £30,000 AVE.

The reverse of this is no matter how impressive it sounds PR is not to all intents and purposes advertising and as such shouldn’t be equated in the same way.

AVE does not present the full picture and doesn’t focus on a lot of the real value of PR and the kind of issues that matter even more than ever right now. It doesn’t give any indication of whether the right key messages have been communicated to the right target audience group(s) and it doesn’t take into account the tone of the coverage or indeed who has seen it and where it has appeared.

The introduction of digital and social media into the mix has also added to the complexity around AVE as whilst everyone rushes to Twitter and Facebook to post a story or a link to a campaign, it is not yet possible to advertise on Twitter and as such there is no comparable measurement. How then do we equate this, as surely we need to be adding social media to reports if we are to paint a fair picture of the coverage we generate?

We could however tie ourselves up in knots looking for just one solution to this age old question. The solution is to look at AVE as only one part of a much larger puzzle that also sees us measuring website statistics (and not just ‘hits’), changes in public perception, OTS (opportunity to see) figures, increases in product sales, audience feedback and other analysis. This involves evaluating PR in a full and detailed context, which in turn takes time and effort to be invested by both client and agency.

In the pressure of the current climate it may be tempting to head for AVE as a simple, easy to produce and easy to grasp measure of success.

But it is only by looking beyond these relatively crude measures that organisations will start to see the bigger picture and gain an understanding into the true value of PR. Right now that value needs to be understood more than ever before.

Posted by: Jennie Whitell

Definitely cause for concern

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:53:31 +0100

Poor old technology – it always gets the blame! Our busy lives mean we’re always looking for shortcuts and texting has enabled us to shorten our words creating a whole language which you only understand if you text.

Interestingly enough though ‘definitely’ wasn’t the hardest word to spell in the list of most popular misspelled words which includes ‘sacrilegious’ and ‘manoeuvre’ in the top ten.

That got me thinking about some of the words that get added to the English Dictionary as our culture and language changes and develops. If a word is misspelt so often, would they add it to the dictionary?

Cracked talks about 15 words you won’t believe they’ve added to the English Dictionary and tells us to fear for our future as ‘grrrl ‘ translated as ‘a young women regarded as independent and strong or aggressive’ makes it onto that list. Others included ‘blamestorming’ and ‘gaydar’. If a word with no vowels in it can be added, could it mean our commonly misspelled ‘definitely’ could make it?

Whilst technology is said to be the cause of our misspelling problem, maybe technology can also be the solution? If you go to Ask Oxford it goes through the commonly misspelt words in our language and gives you guidance notes on how to make sure you spell them correctly.

Whatever happened to the good old dictionary on your desk? Mind you with new words being added all the time, it’s out of date by the time it’s printed!

Posted by: Sharron Ashurst

They work for you � don�t they?

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:50:01 +0100

Our MPs give us a voice at a national level. They represent our needs in parliament, ensuring that our views are taken into account by central government. They exist because of us.

It is therefore vital, both for themselves and those they serve, that it is as easy as possible for constituents to have their say, so they can take matters to the next level, when required, meeting a minister or lodging a question in the house.

All MPs make themselves available to some extent – but there is no common approach, no one size fits all and perhaps there needs to be to ensure consistent governance

They all hold surgeries where constituents are invited to come to them to discuss matters. A few Tweet, use Facebook or write a blog. Many have e-mail addresses and phone numbers, just as it should be.

Apart from the obligatory website, a few eschew digital communications completely, instead inviting correspondence by traditional letter or fax. I know this to be true, as I was recently required to fax one local MP to arrange a meeting, while another was only contactable by post.

Is this easy enough? Are some MPs working hard enough to hear what we have to say? Now much easier forms of communication are in place do the fax machine and envelope constitute a barrier? Our lives are busier than they have ever been before, in part due to the explosion of digital methods of communication. Do people have the time to pen a letter, put it in the post and await a reply? Can people wait for the monthly surgery to get what’s on their mind off their chests – to mix metaphors? Why should they when everyone else is communicating using much speedier methods?

Actual visits and writing letters require much greater effort than drafting an e-mail and could potentially deter the constituent from having their say, or make them feel that the system is deliberately making it hard for them to make their voice heard.

Gordon Brown was, earlier this year, criticised by party colleagues for Labour’s failure to get the message across – but his detractors focused on his use of new media as the failure, not the refusal of some to embrace current and effective channels of communication to speak to their publics.

It would seem to me that moving in this direction is right and it is the failure to get the message across is inherent in relying not on communications tools of the future, but those of the past.

Posted by: Matt Forster

Is all publicity good publicity?

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:42:20 +0100

We all know the value of good media coverage, but I am unsure whether Ryanair’s latest publicity stunt has attracted the right sort of attention.

It seems that I am not the only one shocked by Ryanair’s latest decision to introduce standing spaces on their flights.

There are numerous comments posted on PR and marketing website, Brand Republic in response to the standing room announcement. Each post criticises Ryanair’s annoucement as little more than a publicity stunt.

Entrepreneur has put together the top 10 successful marketing stunts and amongst them is the good, the bad and the ugly. My personal favourite is Burger King’s effort in 1996 when they advertised the left-handed whopper although it was an April Fools day joke, people were going into the restaurant and ordering ‘lefties’.

The right handed community even called for their very own burger. Burger King has continued to ‘amuse’ their customers with creative gags and it seems to work well for the brand.

However Ryanair are certainly not cracking any laughs with their latest announcement and talks have already begun with Boeing, so unfortunately this is no laughing matter.

Standing room does not seem to be popular with members of the public as comments have flooded into the Daily Mail and Telegraph all criticising the low-cost airline.

Although some may feel that ‘all publicity is good publicity’ I would be inclined to disagree, this lastest annoucement has made me and many others think firstly, how can I reach my destination without using Ryanair.

Only time will tell as to whether Ryanair made the right decision to promote its standing room spaces and if nothing else it has shown that they are comitted to deliver the cheapest flights on the market.

Posted by: Katherine Shenton

A not so secret service?

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:17:32 +0100

News that personal details about the life of the next head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, have been removed from social networking site Facebook amid security concerns, has caused huge debate.

Sir John is due to take up his post as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service in November, when he will be in charge of Britain's spying operations abroad. His wife, Lady Shelley Sawers, added information on where the family live and work, their friends and where they go on holiday, onto Facebook recently, but put no privacy protection onto her account - meaning that 200 million users in the London network could see everything.

On one side of the fence, Foreign Secretary David Miliband denied claims security had been compromised, saying: "You know he wears a Speedo swimsuit. That's not a state secret."

Whereas, Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, told the BBC: "A great deal of taxpayers' money has been spent over the past several decades making sure he and his family are protected from security compromises. Well, it doesn't seem to be very relevant any more, does it?"

I think that this case highlights the growing need to inform people about how to protect their personal information online. We all need to be aware of the consequences of adding material onto the world wide web – as it could lead to personal details being used fraudulently or could potentially be damaging for employers.

Many social network providers offer standard default settings that leave personal information open to wide audiences. But more could be done by these providers to make users aware of security settings that will protect their details.

It’s also the up to employers to ensure their internal communications includes guidelines on how to communicate online – both for business and personal purposes. It’s not about avoiding social networking, but practicing safe social networking.

Posted by: Melanie Armstrong

Leaving the state of indifference behind

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:44:03 +0100

It’s often all too easy to believe that apathy reigns in the UK. When it comes to discussing weighty social issues there is often a void which is crying out to be filled by interest or concern.

However, when it comes to celebrity rumour or gossip it would appear that everyone has a point of view.

People, it seems, are reluctant or disinterested in matters which can have a massive bearing on their lives – while Jordan’s ongoing implosion sparks heated debate around the water cooler.

This viewpoint probably has greater resonance with those working within public sector communications, dealing with small numbers of responses to proposals to withdraw hospital services or implement a new school system. Recent local elections only managed to encourage a fraction of the population to turn out. Even a public incensed by MPs’ expenses didn’t manage to get out of the door to register their dissatisfaction by delivering a warning shot across Labours bows with a vote for the Conservatives ahead of the general election.

However, don’t be fooled. People do still care and I have proof.

Here at Gardiner Richardson we’ve been working on the North East Big Drink Debate on behalf of Balance, the North East alcohol office. The way this campaign has been received has reaffirmed my belief in mankind and its ability to have and express an opinion.
By encouraging as many people as possible to complete a questionnaire, the debate is aiming to compile a comprehensive regional study of attitudes towards and relationships with alcohol.

Clearly alcohol is a big issue – it impacts on all aspects of our lives, health, crime and disorder and the economy. It divides public opinion. Some think it is essential to a good night out while others think it fuels mankind’s least pleasant side. It’s an issue that people should be interested in – but that doesn’t always mean they will be interested in it or have their say.

But the people have been interested. It’s only ten days since the campaign launch and more than 7,000 people have returned completed questionnaires.

The region’s media has backed the campaign, with broadcast and editorial coverage on a daily basis – many running the questionnaire within their pages. Stakeholder organisations are promoting the questionnaire with their staff and publics. People are stopping on the street and spending time with our on street teams to fill in the questionnaire.

This is refreshing, perhaps people aren’t really disinterested.
However, to convince me that apathy doesn’t rule, log onto www.northeastbigdrinkdebate.org.uk and have your say.

Posted by: Matt Forster

Differentiation or despicable?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:42:01 +0100

OK! magazine is reported to have paid £300,000 for exclusive rights to a photo of Michael Jackson taken as he lay dying while paramedics attempted to resuscitate him. The magazine claims the photo is the last one showing Jackson alive after his fatal heart attack.

The gossip magazine is said to be running the picture on its front cover “to differentiate itself from the other magazines running tribute issues this week.” Is this differentiation justified or are OK! simply desperate to compete with long standing rival Hello Magazine which is also running a tribute issue this week?

The one-off commemorative Michael Jackson tribute magazine was launched on Tuesday and a total of 200,000 copies of the glossy A4 magazine entitled 'Michael Jackson - Tribute to a Legend, will be on sale for a month, priced at £2.99.

This reminds me of Princess Diana’s death and the uproar when the paparazzi tried to sell pictures of her dying to the tabloids, the reaction hasn’t exactly been the same however it’s hard to see how this is any different. This could also be seen as an intrusion of privacy and very insensitive to the family especially since the story is less than a week old.

In my opinion it’s an absolute disgrace. However whilst it is easy for me to sit here and say it is very bad taste and OK! magazine have taken it too far this time, I am not a struggling publisher hard hit by the recession fighting for my place on the news stands. Who am I to say what is right or wrong?

Bad taste or not, ultimately it will be the public’s reaction that really matters and sadly I have a feeling the picture will have the desired effect and similar to the recent Jade Goody tribute edition the magazine will fly off the shelves making OK! magazine a healthy profit.

I guess only time will tell!

Posted by: Tiffany Scott

Sport spoken softly

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:25:53 +0100

Having never played the game at school – in Durham it was strictly a football sporting upbringing – beginning my cricketing education in my 20s meant looking to other sources for information.

Like fly fishing, which I dipped into around the same time, the level of patience involved in the sport make the actual moments of genuine excitement seem even more vital and rewarding – but what was it all about?

It was around this time that I discovered Test Match Special.

As a copywriter, the language of cricket had more than enough quirks to send me grasping for my notepad in excitement. Gullies and silly points, googlies and leg breaks, night watchmen and tail-enders. It’s all great stuff.

But when you add Test Match Special (or TMS to the affiliated) into the mix, the wordplay really climbs up a notch. It becomes compelling.

The commentary personalities may be the result of public school upbringings, but you don’t have to have played polo at Eton to enjoy it. In the 2005 Ashes series I remember a surreal 10 minute critique on window boxes at nearby flats, when the game took very much second billing. Why say there’s bad weather on the way when it could be put as eloquently as there seems to be inexorable clouds rolling in.

This leads us aptly into another magical element of TMS; the regular intermissions of the Shipping Forecast. These diversions are filled with curious names like Biscay, Viking and Cromarty, each conjuring up evocative images of tough life at sea. Copywriting nirvana.

I think I am will forever be a TMS fan first and a cricket fan second. It’s a place where the English language is allowed to breath, and the audience is never spoken down to.

Commentary for my winter sporting other lady has been dumbed down to such an extent that a three day old baby can now buy into the Premier League product and its related franchises. All passion, but no soul.

TMS is commentary perfectly in tune with its subject matter. Test cricket is, after all, a taste to be savoured rather than knocked back. In a sport that affords the spectator time to think, Aggers, Blowers and CMJ offer language to provoke thought.

Which is why I will blissfully continue to follow a game I don’t fully understand for literally days on end, safe in the knowledge that the company will always be worth listening to.

Posted by: Matthew Kennard

Socially responsible or socially inept?

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:25:43 +0100

Call me naive but there I was thinking that we are in a middle of a recession. The worst economic downturn that the UK has seen in fifty years is the message that has been rolled out in the press for what seems to be an eternity.....

So after months of being bombarded with a daily diatribe of how companies are having make drastic cut backs and are getting rid of the ‘non-essential’ services hand over fist, imagine my surprise when I flick through the pages of PR Week and read rather than axing their CSR programmes some of these exact same debt laden companies are choosing to up the stakes and investing more in bespoke social responsibility packages.

Don’t get me wrong – as a big advocate of CSR for many years now, I am totally thrilled at the thought that the big guns of the corporate world (think Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Orange) are opting to plough more than ever before into the communities which they may (or may not depending on your opinion) serve.

No, my surprise is directed more at the sectors that are opting to sign up to CSR for the first time. PR’s agencies and comms strategists are it is reported, seeing a sharp increase in the numbers of clients approaching them for specific advice on putting together a CSR package. Amongst them (although the agencies concerned are not naming names) are said to be leading lights in the automotive and retail sector – arguably two of the industry’s worst hit by the recession.

One therefore is left asking what the driving force behind this change of heart is... Surely companies are aware that whilst it is very worthy subject that they should be directing their attention towards, it is by no means a cheap one. Also aren’t they inevitably going to come in for some flack when employees learn that they are axing jobs on one hand but lending their support to CSR programmes on another?

Let’s not forget after all that CSR is a relatively new term that is still bandied about without that much level of understanding. To the man on the street CSR can be misconstrued as being a corporate exercise where the MD’s of companies make an concerted effort to ‘connect’ and ‘bond’ with the local community.

Like I said before please don’t get me wrong, I am all for CSR but just lately I have started to occasionally question the reasoning behind why some companies are putting their weight behind it. The doubting Thomas in me says that in certain cases companies are just using it purely as a means of strengthening their brand in a time of crisis.

When this cynicism passes and I take a step back and look at it more logically however, it becomes clear that maybe CSR is more important than ever before. For all the hardship, uncertainty and gloom this recession has brought with it wouldn’t it be heart warming to think that when we come through the other side in 2011 we will emerge with a strong army of company’s all willing to give something back – companies that are not just in it for the pay back that comes in the form of column inches and media coverage.

Time will tell but let’s hope that the organisations that sign up now are the ones that are in it for the long term. Companies are I hope really, genuinely seeing the value in CSR and starting to view it as an integral part of their company’s ethos and value system not just a way to raise their profile in a difficult time.

Posted by: Jennie Whitell

Put me off my burger

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:27:11 +0100

Some things should never, ever be allowed to see the light of day. The sight of a virtually naked Piers Morgan, medallion-clad, reclining in front of a roaring fire accompanied by the line ‘The scent of seduction, with a hint of flame-grilled meat’ has completely put me off my food and is currently giving me nightmares on a regular basis. For me it’s just plain wrong.

There is an observation increasingly in danger of becoming a cliché of 2009, which is that many successful businesses started life in a recession. However, like all good clichés it’s based on truth and there’s no doubting the fact that there are opportunities for those who are prepared to think a little differently. And the same is also true for existing brands.

Which is where Piers Morgan and his unholy alliance with the new Burger King fragrance comes into play. It’s quite an interesting idea in principle; the notion that men spraying themselves with a scent inspired by the fumes of flame grilled meat will transform into masculine objects of desire.

In fact ‘Flame’ was launched in the States as a Christmas gift and the low price tag (it’s retailing for around £4.99, apparently) suggests that this doesn’t really represent a serious assault on the multi-billion pound global fragrance market. It may be more than just a PR stunt (and a potential source of some additional revenue) and it’s unlikely that we’ll all still be spraying ourselves in ten years time. In fact it’s unlikely I’ll ever spray myself with ‘Flame’.

But it did get me thinking about other possible opportunities for brands and celebrities in these unusual and exceptional times in which we live and here are a few of my suggestions, remember you heard it here first…

• Ronseal: sets up a political party and sweeps to power on a simple yet popular promise, the public welcomes a party it can trust to do what it says it will. First Ronseal Prime Minister? Might as well be plain speaking Alan Sugar who’s already building his political credentials. Imagine cabinet reshuffle meetings broadcast live on a Wednesday night.

• Nintendo: move into childcare products as part of their broadening family gaming appeal, leading to an inspired promotion for their newly launched nappy range: ‘Buy a Nintendo Wii, get Nintendo Poos free’. Gillian McKeith is already booked.

• Carling: finally start doing all the things they’ve told us for years they don’t do, such as weddings, night clubs and restaurants and prove to us that they actually are the best in the world. Campaign fronted by, who else, Tina Turner?

• Red Bull: turns out that it really does give you wings as it launches the world’s first low-cost long haul airline, offering flights to Australia for £1, the decision to serve nothing but Red Bull on the flight to passengers only makes for a more entertaining journey. Keith Chegwin dons his pilot’s cap for the high energy TV ads.

• Guinness: in a bold new move to shift economic attitudes, Guinness sets up a new type of bank account which offers minimal credit facilities and is sold under the campaign line ‘Good things come to those who wait’. Sadly it turns out no-one is prepared to sit around for long and the ironic campaign featuring the stars of this year’s Big Brother, Britain’s Got Talent, X-Factor, Come Dine With Me, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, The Apprentice, Hell’s Kitchen and Masterchef proves a flop.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

PR success for Tourism Queensland

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:17:53 +0100

After a worldwide search, Tourism Queensland has appointed its new Islands Caretaker. 'The Best Job in the World' competition proved a huge success for Tourism Queensland, so much so that BBC One has now ordered a documentary to be made about it.

The campaign launched in January attracting almost 35,000 applicants and an estimated £54m of press coverage around the world, it has been deemed by many as the "most successful tourism marketing campaign in history".

When seeing the vast amount of media attention this one job advert generated I can’t help but wonder if Tourism Queensland were expecting the interest it generated?

The contest for the dream job attracted some controversy after being announced in January. Its website crashed due to a deluge of visitors, angering many hopefuls who could not lodge their video applications, suggesting that perhaps Tourism Queensland had not anticipated the full impact of its communications?

The BBC documentary set to air on July 2, the day before the winning candidate Briton Ben Southall begins his role as caretaker of Hamilton Island will provide yet more free publicity for the country. Ben will also be writing a blog on his experiences and being interviewed by the media to further promote the country.

Anticipated or not, Tourism Queensland is certainly making the most of the interest it generated!

Posted by: Tiffany Scott

Making online friends

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:15:46 +0100

Today sees the publication of Datamonitor’s new report ‘The Rise of Social Networking and Emerging Channels in Customer Service,’ it says that while many companies of all different sizes are adopting social media, many are not.

Ian Jacobs, senior analyst for customer interaction technologies at Datamonitor and the report’s author believes that if companies ignore this trend they will be seen to be out of touch and outdated.

It seems that social media is playing a larger part in all our lives, not just PR practitioners and this no longer new medium is replacing more traditional methods. In just the same way that email and texting is more common practice than phone calls and faxing, it seems Facebook is beginning to fill the gap of personal email.

Companies are beginning to improve their customer service by using social networking and Dell is a great example of this. The computer giant has a dedicated online team who monitor and respond to comments made about the brand online, positive or negative.

Some organisations have set-up social media-driven customer contact centres to help bridge the gap between consumer and brand, their role is not just to encourage positive chatter online but to offer online contests, coupons and discount offers.

In the current economic climate, discounts and freebies are king and online channels are a great way to publicise them with no need to spend on expensive advertising campaigns. Martin’s Money Saving Tips and Travel Zoo’s weekly emails are sent to thousands of people every week, all waiting for the latest bargains.
Market Research firm Millward Brown has also released a new report which found that digital consumers have stronger relationships with brands than non-digital consumers.

There are quick and easy ways to start online relationships with customers, but that relationship like any other must be sustained through frequent and meaningful tweets, posts or updates.

Millward Brown’s report also highlights the IT hardware and software, credit card and fragrance industry as having stronger relationships with their online audiences than their offline counterparts.

What struck me immediately is that the above three industries are not ‘personal’ brands as such, I can’t imagine forging a relationship with a credit card company or equally even my favourite perfume in the same way I can with my favourite restaurant.

But on the other hand, maybe that’s why it works so well because people find it hard to forge relationships with objects and this offers a way for the employees behind them to live the brand.

These reports show that social media is just that and people enjoy conversations. Online media allows companies (or rather the people behind them) to listen and respond to their needs and this is becoming ever more important.

Posted by: Katherine Shenton

Power to the people?

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:07:50 +0100

Hazel Blears criticized Gordon Brown for announcing new policies surrounding MPs expenses on YouTube.

The cabinet minister says such use of new media by politicians is far less effective than “old-fashioned campaigning”, arguing that the government has to appear more "human".

But with large parts of our lives now being spent on the internet – from research, job hunting and shopping to keeping in touch with friends, finding your soulmate or booking a holiday – does the world wide web not just offer another door to knock upon?

While there’s no denying that face to face interaction will always be a favoured medium of communication for most people – the internet allows politicians to be omnipresent, speaking to thousands of people in just one sitting.
Gordon Brown is certainly embracing social media, alongside his State side counterpart Obama, who releases a weekly video address on YouTube and frequently tweets on Twitter.
The Number 10 YouTube video channel states that “conversation, after all, should be a two-way process”, with a feature called ‘Ask the PM’, giving you the chance to post video questions to Gordon Brown on a regular basis.

The Number 10 e-petitions service is designed to help people communicate their thoughts on things that matter to them and their communities. But with twice as many people signing the online petition at Number 10 calling for Brown’s resignation than actually voted for Labour in the last election, how will the PM respond within that conversation?

Does inviting opinion online open whole can of worms? Or is the internet a blanket to hide behind? It’s worth remembering that Gordon Brown announced the cuts on MPs allowances on video as opposed to speaking to the Commons, where MPs can answer back.

Listening to the people certainly seems to be at the top of the political agenda as new plans announced by Gordon Brown will allow parents in England to potentially trigger council intervention in unsatisfactory local schools.

But listening is only one half of a conversation. It is how you respond that is the crunch point.
By inviting feedback, you must be prepared to respond to both the good and the bad.
It’ll be interesting to hear what they do say.

Posted by: Melanie Armstrong

Nothing Lasts Forever

Tue, 26 May 2009 17:25:24 +0100

The news this week is that ITV will shortly sell Friends Reunited and with a couple of interested bidders, there are expectations that it could be yours for around £40m. Not bad in this time of economic recession.

Or is it? I’m no city financier, but given that ITV paid a reported £175m for the site and brand when they bought it just four years ago, maybe all of a sudden it doesn’t look like quite such a good deal.

Perceptions are everything online as many people found out to their cost in the first dot com boom and bust. Companies received astronomical valuations and then proceeded to implode gloriously.

In hindsight we can look back a little disdainfully and a trifle smugly at what went on. Personally I don’t believe a lot of what was said at the time was actually wrong; the visionaries were just about 10-15 years ahead of the game. But that’s what visionaries do.

Everyone’s scrabbling for the next big thing, whether that’s the new Facebook, Amazon or Google. In 2006 Mark Zuckerberg turned down $1bn from Yahoo for his Facebook site. At the time many people thought he was mad (I still do in some ways), but the brand has gone from strength to strength and the only potential issue might be the fact that the revenue generation is still nowhere near the projected valuation.

Time will tell. And that brings us back to Friends Reunited. Once it really did enjoy the same kind of status of Facebook, albeit for a smaller number of people. Many of whom possibly had slight stalker tendencies (I guess some things don’t change).

Brands are built on relationships and relationships are a two-way thing. In the ‘real’ world (and I’m starting to struggle to work out which is which), many brands rely on a financial investment to generate that relationship. You give them your money and they give you their products and services. It builds loyalty – most of the time we all like to think a little about who gets our money after all.

The challenge for these sites is to create that investment in other ways, and this is typically time. The more time you spend updating your profile online, adding content, pictures, joining clubs and groups, the harder it is to walk away.

Like any organisation on or offline, brand loyalty is what marketeers strive for and that’s the investment that Facebook has got us to make far more effectively than Friends Reunited ever did. The more time and effort we spend the less likely we’ll be to move on.

Longevity is the holy grail of online brands and just like any long-term relationship it works best when both sides put a bit of effort it.

Whether Facebook will stand the test of time, who knows? It will be interesting to see where Friends Reunited goes and whether it will be able to reinvent itself.

Perhaps I’ll head off and set up ‘Websites that were going to change the world Reunited’ and see if I can get it to join up?

Posted by: Dom Aldred

Wanted Social Media Secretary

Tue, 26 May 2009 17:23:51 +0100

Is it getting impossible to keep up with keeping up with social media? As digital takes over most aspects of our lives, if we let it, how on earth can we ever hope to keep up as mere human beings?

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn – are all pulling and demanding our time and energy as we seek to share with the rest of the world what we’re up to and what we think and feel on a daily basis and even hourly basis, as well as being poked, nudged, followed, direct messaged and linked. Invitations from friends and colleagues who want you to join social networking groups and start relationships with more friends than we can ever possibly need or want. It’s all enough to make you exhausted just thinking about it all!

There could definitely be an argument for employing social media secretaries, occupied full time keeping our social media activities ship shape and all in order. Just think how many more social networks we could be part of, how many more people in the world we could share a virtual connection with and how much more time we’d actually have? Just think we might even make time to meet some of those friends and contacts face to face, how bizarre would that be, it would like being transported back to 1989!

The question is would we will be able to find the place to meet them without consulting a Google map?

Posted by: Sharron Ashurst

Identifying and measuring sentiment

Fri, 15 May 2009 09:12:39 +0100

PR Week recently published an article about online reputation entitled ‘The art of monitoring social media’ in it Arun Sudhaman carries out product reviews of the top companies offering social media monitoring.

There is no perfect solution to social media monitoring available at the moment, but there are products that can help. However, at a recent social media conference, I learnt about the potential of setting up an iGoogle dashboard to help identify conversations taking place online.

Put simply, you can set up a personalised dashboard which can include quick links to social media sites, for example, You Tube, Flickr and Twitter. But, there is so much more scope than that, you can built search terms into sites such as Twitter Search, Board Reader and Blog Pulse which will allow you to see what is being said about your organisation.

You can set up your iGoogle homepage so it displays what is being said about your organisation on blogs, discussion boards, forums and Twitter.

By setting up a monitoring page it allows you to quickly see what is being said and gives you an opportunity to respond. If you do choose this method you will have to come up with your own evaluation system, whether it is as simple as positive, negative or neutral is up to you.

Alternatively, Sudhaman offers advice and reviews about companies that can offer this service and Radian6 seems to come out on top.

Whether you choose to do this in house or enrol the help of the experts is up to you, but whatever your approach, collecting this data is key to the success of your communications plan. Ignoring what is being said about your company can turn a molehill into a mountain as momentum gathers on social networks.

Posted by: Katherine Shenton

Using the royal WeSpace

Fri, 15 May 2009 09:10:18 +0100

This week Prince Charles' became the first Royal to use a social network to campaign for a worthy cause.

He is using MySpace to raise awareness of his Prince of Wales Rainforest Project, urging the social network's community to electronically sign a petition to fight climate change by addressing rainforest destruction.

His MySpace appearance follows in the footsteps of the Queen, who recently sent her first official email to mark the 60th anniversary of the Commonwealth.

MySpace users can connect with the Prince's Rainforest Project and view the custom video message from Charles, who is joined by celebrity friends including the Dalai Lama, Joss Stone, Kermit the Frog, Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford.

In the video, Prince Charles said: "One of the internet's great strengths is that it can enable diverse communities to come together to ensure that everybody's views and actions can really be made to count.

"It provides the potential to create global determination for change on a vitally important issue."

This is a dramatic turnaround from his comments last year, when he said technology dependence had left many people detached from nature.

Whilst this move is a big step forward for the Royal Family and an effective way of raising awareness of a good cause, I can’t help but think Charles is still somewhat behind the times. After all who actually uses MySpace anymore?

Given that last month Facebook accounted for the highest percentage of time spent online in the UK, would his efforts have been better placed creating a Facebook page and posting the video on that or posting a link thorough to the video on Youtube?

You never know we may even see His Royal Highness tweeting in the not so distant future.

Posted by: Tiffany Scott

Sorry shouldn�t be the hardest word

Wed, 13 May 2009 13:05:42 +0100

It’s been often observed that we live in a culture that has come to be increasingly defined by blame. The introduction of ‘no win no fee’ legal contracts has, in the eyes of many, not only fundamentally shifted the focus of our justice system but also altered many other aspects of daily life.

Right now the blame vultures are circling far and wide in a journey to allocate responsibility for the current economic climate and they’re having a whale of a time.

One of the many unfortunate side effects of this culture is the rise in defensiveness – when everyone looks to blame everyone else, it’s almost inevitable that we all become much less willing to say sorry. The blame game often works through the domino effect – A blames B, but it wasn’t really B’s fault, it was C after all. People and organisations are much less willing to stand up and say they made a mistake.

Which makes the very public admission by Marks and Spencer that it got its bra pricing strategy wrong a little more notable than usual. A series of ads admitting ‘We boobed’ has been taken out in national newspapers. The £2 additional charge for larger bras has been rescinded and, what’s more, there’s now 25% off all bras for a limited period (and no, I'm not on commission in case you're wondering).

M&S has always been great about returns, it’s something that I’ve heard so often over the years, ‘the great thing is they’ll take it back if you don’t like it’. Nowadays that’s become very much the norm, but for a long time it was a hallmark of the M&S brand.

You can often tell a lot more about a person, an organisation and a brand when things go wrong. How mistakes and problems are dealt with will reveal the real self in a way that good times and easy situations don’t. Just ask Gordon Brown.

This is why M&S wins out for this latest campaign:

1. They’ve recognised that they made a mistake. OK, they may have been facing pressure groups and a revolt from shareholders, but we’ve seen plenty of far bigger organisations and individuals ride out far more serious outcries in recent months without bowing to consumer pressure.

2. They’ve made a very public admission, which not only goes out of its way to admit the mistake but is also unreserved, there’s no attempt to back up the apology with a load of excuses, it is what it is.

3. They’ve done it with a degree of humour and charm, it’s not hand wringing, squirming apology, it’s not given through gritted teeth and it’s not long-winded.

4. They’ve backed up their apology with immediate action. All too often we see apologies that are full of empty words and promises and we’ve all become a bit sceptical as to what an apology is really worth. Not in this case, the monetary value and discount is there for all to see.

Now, let’s be clear; this is a move driven by financial and commercial gain, M&S hasn’t done this out of the goodness of its heart. Of course it hasn’t. I’m not holding this up as a worthy and wonderful social gesture.

What I am saying is that M&S has had the insight, understanding and confidence to see that it had inadvertently created on the one hand a crisis for the brand, but on the other hand a great opportunity to make a really powerful statement about the M&S brand, its personality and its beliefs.

In a way the brand emerges stronger than ever from this little episode (I really daren’t call it a storm in a DD cup).

There are lessons in this for many other organisations in these interesting times in which we live. Saying sorry is no bad thing, brands are built on relationships and like all relationships it’s about sticking together through the good times and the bad. But both sides have to work hard at it.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

And pigs might fly....

Thu, 07 May 2009 09:49:59 +0100

By now, unless you have been cut off from all known forms of communication, you'll have heard about swine flu.

From headlines declaring that ‘all of humanity is under threat’ to breakfast television broadcasts showing anxious parents at the gates of their child’s school clutching anti viral medication, there is, it seems, no escaping from the fact that a pandemic is nigh.

Yet whilst most of us are being bombarded with Sky News footage of planes grounded on run ways in Mexico and live links to the UN’s crisis talks urging, it is a less visual medium that seems intent on reporting this crisis on a minute by minute basis.

Love it or hate it, Twitter is rapidly gaining thousands upon thousands of tweets that relate directly to the outbreak. A lot of these tweets simply provide links to mainstream sources of news and information. A lot however, contain misinformed nonsense, from conspiracy theories to warnings about eating pork sausages.
Given Twitter's rising prominence, some have criticised it as a mere breeding ground for scaremongering – a dangerous tool for the misinformed. Is this criticism deserved? Well yes.... and no.

If we're going to make a tally of those who are due criticism for swine flu hysteria, add the mainstream media to the list. Yes, this is a fundamentally important story and public health officials around the world wouldn't be doing their jobs if they weren't taking the risk seriously. People do need to be made aware of the situation and the media has a role to play in that.

But the mainstream media has played its role in ratcheting up the hysteria.

One could argue that traditional forms of media do a better job providing accurate information and context over Twitter's gossipy entries. But it's hard to argue that the same mainstream media, that created 24-hour news and set the gold standard for sensationalist headlines, hasn't fomented the type of hyperactive chatter that exists on Twitter and that is now being criticised.

If observers are going to criticise the behaviour of people on Twitter, that's fair to an extent. There is after all plenty of valid criticism to be made. But let's not pretend that Twitter is alone in generating swine flu hysteria either.

Posted by: Jennie Whitell

T�was ever thus

Thu, 07 May 2009 09:38:43 +0100

How many times have you heard or read a polemic about the dreadful way that these awful modern times in which we live are eroding our beautiful English language? Heads are shaken as a flood of ‘tut tuts’ escapes our mouths and we wonder where it’s all going to end.

Typically these rants will rapidly bring in examples of writing and public speaking from around 40-50 years ago, citing them as beacons of ‘proper use’ of English in a golden era that has just slipped by, forever lost.

As the tears of nostalgia start to swell, we are asked to condemn this new trend for the destruction of such a marvellous edifice as our beloved mother tongue.

So what to make of the following statements then?

“I do here…complain…that our Language is extremely imperfect; that its daily Improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily Corruptions.” That’s Jonathan Swift writing in 1712.

“Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way.” George Orwell in 1946.

“Practically everyone…in those days spoke correctly, but the lapse of time has certainly had a deteriorating effect in this respect.” This is Cicero the Roman orator speaking in 46 BC.

I’ve taken these three quotes from a brilliant book called The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher, which looks at the way in which languages around the world are in a constant state of destruction and construction.

It challenges our commonly held views on languages in many aspects and shows with some very clear and simple examples how our tendencies towards economy, expressiveness and analogy are powerful forces behind the way we use language and the impact on language as a result.

Deutscher examines how our natural preferences to make language as easy as possible to speak and write often results in words being shortened, vowels being changed.

He also looks at how our desire to find new ways to express ourselves results in new uses of words which may appear novel for a time but quickly become so established that we have to look for new methods.

A roaring fire, ground-breaking plans, a frosty reception. All phrases we wouldn’t even think twice about, because the in-built metaphors have become so well-established. So now if you really want to emphasise the unwelcoming reception you received you’ll need a new word. Chilling perhaps?

And he looks at how our craving for order means we use analogy to apply systems and structures of language that can sometimes start with pure anomalies.

It’s a fantastic book which covers many, many themes and ideas, but the point I want to make here is the way in which he demonstrates that language has always changed and evolved.

We may think we’re different and new, but we’re simply not. We’re nothing special, it’s been happening for thousands of years.

What is interesting is the fact that overall, while there are constructive forces at play in language, the trend for a number of millennia now is very clearly toward simplification - the most complex linguistic structures are those in very small tribal societies.

Deutscher speculates, and it is only speculation at this stage, that as societies have become more complex, with more speakers and often with multiple languages there is a natural and inevitable tendency toward the simplification of language.

If that’s proved to be the case, and it seems very possible, then what we may be able to say about our moment in history is that perhaps the explosion in additional forms of communication (mobile phones, email, text, the internet, the Web) has helped to accelerate this pace of change.

But then maybe Cicero said the same about wax tablets, Swift about the goose quill and Orwell about the fountain pen and spiral bound notebooks.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

You already know the answer

Fri, 01 May 2009 08:40:52 +0100

According to scientific researchers, use of Facebook or Twitter might be changing the way we think about moral situations and could, ultimately make us indifferent to human suffering.

Scientists at the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California suggest that the fast-paced nature of modern media, including Facebook updates and Twitter, don’t give us enough time to reflect. Time that they say is crucial in forming emotions such as admiration and compassion, which take longer to form than a response to signs of physical pain.

The scientists offer a wealth of medical evidence to back up this theory, which certainly sounds on the face of it like yet more evidence of the way in which our ‘soundbite culture’ is eroding the values and ethics of society.

Or is it? Perhaps instead it’s yet more evidence of the fact that we are standing at a fascinating time in history, participating in an Information Revolution that will have profound implications for the future that we cannot yet understand.

At times we seem caught between two urges. On the one hand we want everything now; we want it in bite-size chunks and it has to come in a disposable format so we don’t feel too guilty when we cast it aside.

Yet at the same time we live in a culture ever more dominated not only by rules and regulations but by committee decisions, where nothing is agreed without consultations and focus groups. We seem to be becoming increasingly wary of making snap decisions ourselves without deferring to the collective majority.

Our language is full of words that have taken on multiple meanings and pairs of words that have developed positive/negative attributes. So ‘Up’, ‘Light’, ‘Forward’ are generally seen as ‘good’ concepts, things to aspire to, while ‘Down’, ‘Dark’, and ‘Backward’ often have negative connotations.

Arguably to the negative list we could add ‘quick decisions’. These days it seems only when something has been carefully deliberated and cogitated, reviewed by a board of experts and properly tested can it be declared ‘right’. I’m reminded of the hilarious scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the Judean People’s Front discuss ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?

And this erosion of our self-belief and decision making capability it seems to me is a crying shame and very possibly one of the real downsides of the information revolution. With so much information available to process is it any wonder some times that we seem confused? That we feel the need to check what everyone else thinks first?

In his excellent and very timely book Blink, Malcom Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, makes a fascinating case for the value and importance of the immediate judgement. He refers to a wide range of different examples in arts, politics, science, medicine, where people’s ability to make the correct judgement instantly comes from an ability to ‘thin slice’. That is to process a large volume of relevant data that an individual has collected through experience and use it to evaluate a present situation extremely accurately.

Largely a sub-conscious process, it is this ability to thin slice, to react quickly and correctly to situations through learned experience that has arguably enabled our survival and prosperity as a species.

I’m not for one second suggesting the children should be directed to social networking sites as an ideal means of developing their concepts of morality.

But I am suggesting that if we’re not careful we could end up losing our individual decision making capability. We become ever more afraid of trusting our own instinct to know when something is right or wrong and being able to make that decision confidently in a split second. Sometimes we need to do just that.

Survival now may not be about deciding whether the tiger with big teeth that has just jumped out of the tree is a signal to run as fast as you can in the opposite direction or a signal to try and tickle its tummy.

But we should not be afraid of making decisions quickly; sometimes they might be wrong, but very often they’re the best ones we make.

Remember, an awful lot of very bad decisions are also made by committees, over long periods of time with intense consultation – it’s just that when a lot of people have been involved there’s normally more of a vested interest in forgetting about it and moving on.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

SEO what?

Fri, 01 May 2009 08:31:34 +0100

Go near any website development project these days and it won’t be long until the subject of Search Engine Optimisation, or SEO, is brought to the table.

Using SEO to help your site achieve a number one spot on Google, Yahoo or Live search engines is akin to modern alchemy. But how effective is it?

Obviously when it is done well it can be a very useful tool – delivering quantifiable results and saving your business vital resources. However the best performing websites do not owe their success to any alchemic metamorphosis; it’s usually down to plain old diligence and patience over many weeks and months too.

Which is quite a shame really, as most companies look for a slightly faster turnaround than that. You’ve just paid out for your shiny new website, but how is anyone going to find it if it isn’t in the first page of Google?

At this stage in the web’s development companies need to start thinking of getting a website live as the starting point of its evolution, not the finish line. Search engines like to recommend websites that consistently provide great experiences. So, ask yourself, what keeps you returning to your favourite sites?

Functionality, look and content will no doubt be a big part of it. But if you return to one of your favourites and find these elements remain the same from month to month, well, you can only watch repeats so many times before you change channels.

So keeping your site fresh is important, and this is where all that diligence and patience comes in. Updating the site with relevant content, and giving it a fresh lick of paint every now and then, is what will keep most people coming back.

It’s also the formula that gets search engines interested too.

Of course, there are some handy techniques from the world of SEO that will ably complement this approach. Effective use of keywords is a great way to focus your message and helps search engines rate your site too, while links to other related sites is also a great tactic.

But although these tactics are good practice, in terms of effectiveness they seem to pale into insignificance next to the benefits of producing a well structured and thoughtfully written site.

One of the most important questions which few people ask themselves when looking into SEO is have I built a site deserving of top rankings at the search engines? The cream still floats to the top, whether it’s on Google or the FTSE 100.

SEO is a highly involved long-term process, so those expecting it to be their quick route to the top will be sorely disappointed. Great rankings come from having great sites with quality links, no tricks or secrets required (unfortunately).

Posted by: Matthew Kennard

Tweet like a master

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:35:11 +0100

Academics at Birmingham City University have been using Twitter to fight back against critics of its Social Media Masters Degree.

The news that the £4,400 MA course will be available from September broke soon after draft plans were announced to introduce Twitter, Wikipedia and blogging into the primary school curriculum.

The course at Birmingham City University covers social media topics like how to start a blog and podcasting techniques, as well as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo.

It will consider the development and direction of social media as a creative industry, contributing new research and knowledge to the field. It is being advertised through a video on the university's website - where else?

The MA has been slated by critics as being overly simple and a waste of university resources.

On one hand, it could be viewed as jumping on the bandwagon, that the shelf life of Twitter and Facebook is limited and the teachings will soon become as redundant as the technology, as it is replaced by something new.

On the other hand, just because social media is relatively new and subject to growth and change, should we ignore it? The subject matter will clearly be relevant to anyone who is set to work in the communications industry – these new forms of communication are not going to go away. The names may change as one site or forum is replaced by another more popular form – but social media is only going to develop.

However, does it warrant an entire degree to itself?

Social media is just one weapon in the PR and communications arsenal. Is it really substantial enough to fill an entire year?

Does its inclusion as a degree subject in its own right provide grist to the mill of those who say the university degree is constantly being devalued by the introduction of non-academic subjects? Let’s not forget that there was a time, not so long ago, that PR degrees were frowned upon, both inside and outside the profession.

Posted by: Melanie Armstrong

When PR stunts go wrong

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:28:18 +0100

For years PR stunts have been used as an effective and perfectly valid means of generating publicity for organisations and brands.

The good side is creating, in an easy and quick way, media frenzy and buzz around the project the stunt is based on.

But what if a PR stunt doesn't really turn out the way it was supposed to?

Is there really no such thing as bad publicity?

Recently, a marketing stunt involving a hunt for convincing replica human remains across central London went awry, with a number of body parts going missing.

The stunt was orchestrated by a London PR agency to promote the Friday the 13th launch of Resident Evil 5, a zombie and gore-focused console game.

The stunt involved a treasure hunt in which around 50 members of the public had to retrieve legs, arms, heads and torsos from a number of secret locations.

Is this just a case of harmless bad taste or is it highly offensive and disturbing, particularly out in the open where children could have been exposed?

The stunt attracted a number of complaints to the police from horrified passers-by and officers arrived at the finishing line to move event organisers on.

A PR spokesman insisted that the loss of the body parts, which sparked notices online and in print for their return, was not a further stunt to generate more PR.

With recent headlines about a real trail of limbs in Hertfordshire, just imagine the headlines if this launch had been a few weeks later.

With this in mind, should there be greater regulation of PR activity – an Advertising Standards Agency for the profession to prevent it from sliding into disrepute?

Posted by: Tiffany Scott

Online question time

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:48:40 +0100

Only time will tell whether action following the G20 summit in London will restore worldwide financial stability.

However, the event has already sent a strong signal about the importance of online journalism in raising awareness of big political issues amongst the masses.

It did this by claiming a world first in giving bloggers the same access, recognition and authorisation as professional reporters.

The bevy of bloggers (amongst them 14 year old James Simmonds – the youngest person ever to receive accreditation – how’s that for reaching the youth market?) were charged with posting onto the G20 Voice live feed which was followed and commented upon by readers across the globe.

By giving bloggers unprecedented access, it has opened up political debate – moving it beyond the confines of the traditional media and increasing the opportunity to get the public interested and involved.

This democratising process was given a helping hand by the London Summit’s use of Yoosk? – enabling bloggers to ask politicians direct questions. Again another first. This level of engagement did not take place before the advance of digital technology.

G20’s example provides evidence that social networking is growing up and can handle the big issues. It has shown that it is no longer simply a place for celebrity gossip and if the prime minister can take questions from bloggers shouldn’t we?

Posted by: Matt Forster

Could celebrities save our lives?

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:44:26 +0100

We all know that celebrities are role models.

Whether good or bad, their behaviour influences huge numbers – from haircuts and clothes to whether we smoke or drink.

From a communications perspective, we all know that celebrity endorsement can work wonders when seeking to raise the profile of an organisation, a product or an issue.

Recently, Jade Goody used her celebrity selflessly and bravely, sharing her last days with the world to raise the profile of cervical cancer.

As a direct result, The Guardian has reported that cervical cancer screening rates have increased and coverage for Marie Curie Cancer Care http://www.mariecurie.org.uk/ has never been so high.

For those raising awareness of public health issues, Jade’s contribution has been significant. If only there were more like her.

Jade is not the first to use her influence to benefit society – but she has granted greater access than most to get her point across.

Whether it be Lady Di and Aids, Bono and third world debt or George Clooney and the environment, many celebrities are working hard to make the world a better place. But they would appear to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Perhaps if greater numbers used their position to raise awareness of important issues, more lives would be saved.

Posted by: Katherine Shenton

Get online from beyond the grave

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:39:05 +0100

For anyone approaching the dying of the light, there are a number of concerns which will no doubt weigh heavily on the mind.

Ensuring that wills are up to date and last wishes fulfilled are obvious candidates. You might even consider how the news will reach friends, family members and acquaintances.

In days gone by we relied upon phone calls, word of mouth or perhaps an announcement in the local paper.

But in this online age, where the majority of us have built up (sometimes vast) networks of friends online, there are more and more people to tell – who can’t be reached by the traditional means.

Grieving relatives and friends have for some time been able to set up online memorial sites using sites such as www.gonetoosoon.co.uk but it seems that’s just not enough.

There is a whole new business in websites springing up to like www.deathswitch.com which will automatically send e-mails to all your online contacts if you don’t check in after a period of time.

Alternatively www.slightlymorbid.com will do the same thing once a trusted friend or relative has logged on using a secure password and registered the news of your death online.

It seems that even in death, online communication is impossible to ignore.

Posted by: Sharron Ashurst

But is it art?

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:31:44 +0100

A key part of working in communications is establishing connections with our audiences so that we can begin conversations.

We establish connections to show that we have similar aims and passions, we think along the same lines and we are approachable.

With this in mind, police in Devon have daubed a station with graffiti in a bid to identify with young people in the communities they serve.

Giving props to hip hop, street savvy officers are pictured wearing their peaked caps sideways (one sticks out his tongue) in the specially commissioned mural.

But does this communicate the right message?

On one hand it may just make officers more approachable to local youths who feel that the police have embraced a part of their culture. It is possible that it will make some people think of graffiti in a different way.

On the other hand it could be viewed as a costly gaff – at the taxpayers’ expense - which reduces respect in officers and insults the youth audience it is trying to communicate with.

Whatever you think, it is an incredibly bold move, which has attracted national coverage – therefore certainly putting the Devon force on the map.

Importantly it also goes to show the increasing diverse ways in which organisations are seeking to communicate with their target audiences. The police graffiti may divide public opinion and it may alienate more people than it seeks to embrace – but it has certainly started a conversation.

Posted by: Matt Forster

United we stand

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:14:13 +0100

Well it’s happened. The biggest local government shake up of the past 30 years is taking place as we speak and before close of play today 44 local councils will cease to be, having become part of nine ‘supersized’ authorities.

Whatever the pros and cons of the debate, one thing is clear – with or without a move to unitary, the relationships between districts and counties will never be the same again.

Partnerships built up inch by inch over the years are already wobbling. Political friendships are under pressure and press release wars are breaking out all over.

As someone who worked for an authority, I have to say on some levels I am not wholly opposed to the idea. For years, there has been potential confusion around the two tier system, with people not knowing who they should go to when reporting a faulty streetlamp or complaining about fly-tipping. I for one can see that having a single council could make life easier.

People do however need to be convinced that the change is worth it – something which has possibly been neglected a little despite the numerous blogs and column inches that have been devoted to the subject since the first white paper on this subject was posted over ten years ago. Instead of talking about the benefits that it would actually make to them as individuals, the focus has been on how these councils will now have ‘stronger lobbying powers’ and how it will ‘reduce current administrative burdens’ – arguably phrases that mean little to people who just want to know what day their bin is due to be collected.

Is this failure to communicate and connect with people then a failure for public relations as whole? If so what can be done to remedy it now that 44 have been reduced to nine.

The responsibility does not and cannot lie solely at the door of the councils’ communications officers. They have been charged with an enormous task and without clear guidance from the government many may have been left wondering what the key messages are that they should be relaying to their vast audience base.

Besides which, I feel that now is the time to stop covering the same old tired ground, embrace the change and move forward. Local government will only get the public’s support if it explains how it makes lives better. How will creating a new unitary council give us better schools and leisure centres at a price we can afford? How can councils on either side of the argument really talk with local people, rather than merely shout at them? Once they get this sussed, everything else will fall into place.

Is big always beautiful? Maybe, maybe not, but in this case only time will tell.

Posted by: Jennie Whitell

The twittering classes

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:56:23 +0100

It’s been said before and it’ll be said again, but this is definitely the year of Twitter – so much so that government ministers are proposing to make it central to future policy.

Draft plans for the primary school curriculum will require children to master Twitter and Wikipedia. It proposes that children will leave school familiar with blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter as sources of information and forms of communication.

Although common sense and experience screams that this is a perfect example of jumping on the latest trend, it does highlight that the world of communication is changing.

It also highlights the ever growing importance of communications in the modern world.

If tomorrow’s consumers and service users are going to be relying upon Twitter, blogs, podcasts and Wikipedia as their main sources of information, fluency in these languages is a must.

Although pinpointing the exact expiry date of print is now a time-honoured pastime, its omission from the proposals speaks volumes about the government’s opinion on this issue.

The proposals are the latest indication that the next generation are rapidly growing up in a vastly multi-channeled world where the media, in its broadest sense, is defining and shaping people (through Facebook, twitter, Wikipedia and blogs) in a way, and at a stage in life, that it has never done before.

The writing’s on the Facebook wall, so get up to speed before you need to take lessons from your children.

Posted by: Matt Forster

Take me to your Facebook Manager

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:45:03 +0100

Although it set out with the aim of connecting people with friends and colleagues, Facebook is being put to a growing range of uses.

As more and more people use the social networking site to tell all to anyone, those who invest a little time listening stand to learn a lot. In fact, there is so much to learn, should businesses and organisations bring someone in to specifically manage Facebook communication?

Obviously, organisations and businesses realised early on that Facebook could be used as a tool to communicate with audiences. It is an informal way of getting in on the conversation and finding out what people really think about your product or service, as long as you are prepared for some home truths.

As well as gathering popular opinion, Facebook is increasingly being used to keep tabs on what target audiences are up to, whether it be Google ads or the Government.

Last week the Government published proposals to police social networking sites as part of its counter terrorism activities, focusing on contacts rather than content.

It has also been reported that specialist fraud investigators are scouring details posted online by those claiming benefits to check they are telling the truth about their family situations.

They are using Facebook pages to find out whether those claiming to be single or living alone to get handouts are infact married or sharing a household with other adults.

It is also being used to build child protection cases by monitoring the behaviour of some parents. Monitoring the site can catch out people who claim they have separated from abusive partners but are still in regular contact, posing a potential risk for children in their care.

If Facebook can help businesses and organisations achieve their aims, then fair play. But they will first have to face up to the reality of using Facebook in this way. It will require dedication to reap rewards.

As is often the case, businesses and organisations start up a Facebook page in the hope that it will instantly deliver results.

There is a belief that having one is enough. However, effective Facebook management takes time. Businesses and organisations need to get onto appropriate fanpages where they have an interest, something to say or something to offer and build relationships over a sustained period of time before they can reap the rewards.

Take the time to listen to what your audience is saying, ask them questions and use their responses to improve services or products. And don’t be easily offended – you’re talking to real people with real opinions – expect some real answers.

It sounds like a lot of work – so who will be first to employ the first ever dedicated Facebook manager?

Posted by: Matt Forster

Is the customer always right?

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:11:45 +0000

So, Gordon Brown is talking up an information revolution and, council services, GPs, police and others are soon to find themselves staring down the barrel of online customer reviews of their services.

In an effort to bridge the gap between perceived transparency shown by sites like eBay and Amazon, Brown’s document – Working Together – acknowledges just how far behind the Government has fallen and pledges to make great strides in making change.

It’s an intriguing thought and one which certainly makes for good soundbites in the media, while no doubt (and quite reasonably) striking dread into the heart of many public sector organisations. Will this prove to be a valuable tool for improving the quality of services and building customer relationships, or simply a more visible channel for complaint? Is there a difference at the end of the day?

What is certain is that the Government will need to be clear about what the purpose of the ratings system is and how this is communicated if it is to prove a genuinely useful and positive tool.

Customer ratings on web sites have been around for well over a decade and have become part and parcel of the online vernacular. They can be incredibly useful, empowering consumers and providing valuable insight into products and services that we might consider buying.

However, it is too simplistic to transfer as a package the same principles to reviews of public sector services and will require some very careful adaptation.

When we go to Amazon or any similar site we have a choice. We don’t have to buy a book or a DVD. Even if we do want to buy it we don’t have to buy it from Amazon. We instinctively understand and appreciate this – it’s pretty obvious, but it’s also very important. It’s our decision to purchase and we do so with a vast array of choice.

In many cases when people talk about public sector services the attitude is very different – we pay our taxes and believe we have a ‘right’ to the kind of service we expect and want.

However , when it comes to publicly funded-services, more often than not we don’t actually have a choice. If we don’t like the way policing is carried out, we can’t exactly choose to shop elsewhere.

The whole point of reviews on sites like Amazon is not so much about transparency, as choice. Introducing a review system for services where there is limited or no choice needs to be very clear about what the purpose of the reviews is. Who’s going to read them? What’s actually going to change as a result?

Companies have had to learn a very basic lesson all over again – you can’t please everyone all the time. And nor, as a commercial brand, should you necessarily try to. Web review sites just make this fact a bit more visible by giving both the positive and negative views their global page-time.

You either have to accept it or you work hard to listen to the feedback and make genuine improvements.

This will be a real communications challenge for many publicly funded services.

Disgruntled customers means disgruntled voters, while trying to keep an entire community happy is almost impossible.

Unless the real purpose and role of these sites is carefully thought through and expectations managed through sound communication, it is hard to see where the win lies in all of this.

Posted by: Sharron Ashurst

Getting ready for the summer?

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:41:18 +0000

Can you really get a tan sitting at your computer? It might sound too good to be true, especially for a society seemingly ever more obsessed with changing its skin colour, and yet that is exactly the promise on a new website www.computertan.com.

Visit the site and you will, eventually, discover that not only is computer tanning impossible, but in fact the site is part of a campaign to raise awareness of the risks of skin cancer on behalf of the Karen Clifford Skin Cancer Charity.

Ten years ago my inbox constantly creaked under a flood of emails forwarded from friends that covered everything from a joke I’d heard a hundred times before to lists outlining why women were better than men, dogs better than cats, things to do in the office to brighten up your day and so forth. It didn’t take long for organisations to get wise to this phenomenon. And the concept of ‘viral marketing’ was born. A piece of communication that could be sent out to a small group of people who would then forward it on at exponential rates.

For many organisations the concept of viral has become a bit like the Holy Grail of marketing – ‘let’s do a viral’ – you know you want one, you know it has untold powers and yet you’re not quite sure what it looks like or where to find it.

I think the computertan site is a great example of how to do things properly. Set up by McCann Erickson and Rubber Republic and supported by PR and advertising activity, the hoax company attracted over 30,000 visits to the website in the first 24 hours. That’s pretty impressive in anyone’s book.

As a social marketing campaign tackling what is a massive issue for the UK (more people die of skin cancer in the UK than in Australia, five a day), I think it works primarily for five different reasons:

It is brilliantly and intuitively targeted: what better way to reach those most at risk of skin cancer than by enticing them with the promise of innovative new tanning services. A very digital honey trap. There’s nothing like the promise of something enticing to grab our interest.

It is incredibly simple: the best ideas are always the ones you can write down in one or two sentences, there is nothing over-engineered about this, it’s a very easy concept to buy in to. The more you think about this the less it works, so it has to seem perfectly reasonable from the outset.

It is well considered and executed: the website itself would not take long to design and build, but despite this every detail has been thought through to create a genuinely believable corporate website, right down to the fake products and supporting information. It’s this kind of attention to detail that really makes the difference.

It gets the message across with a punch: this campaign has a very serious message, the site builds you up, ‘calibrating’ your screen, switching on the tubes of light and creating a sense of expectation then, just as you’re imagining the tan you’re going to get, bang, up pops the message that UV exposure kills along with five very graphic pictures of skin cancer.

It takes us on a journey: rather than a static site with some pictures and text about the risk of skin cancer, this site includes the audience within the narrative, we’re participants in the story. The premise of all stories is ultimately personal change and transformation, so what better way to get a message about changing behaviour over to a large number of people?

There is no doubting the very real power of viral marketing, but as the old stories tell us, the search for the Holy Grail can be a dangerous one for the uninitiated. Of course, for those who know what they’re looking for, it can be the ultimate reward.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

What�s your website trying to tell you?

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:35:45 +0000

More and more organisations are turning to their websites right now. As the importance of marketing becomes ever more critical, websites are often a relatively cost-effective way of increasing profile and presence and building relationships with existing customers.

The question is, at a time when budgets are often at a premium, on what basis are decisions being made?

We all know web analytics and online measurement is much more sophisticated than it used to be. We’ve come a long way. But can you, hand on heart, say you’re really making the most of all that valuable customer and campaign information at your disposal?

A recent study of 70,000 SME websites, carried out by BT, revealed that the majority of small businesses are not using their websites effectively enough to attract new customers. Only one in six have e-commerce facilities, while just 11% regularly maintain their sites. Just one in more than 3,000 are using keywords in the content they post on their sites - despite the use of keywords increasing the chances of search engines picking up web pages.

If you put your website on the couch and made some time to listen to it, what would it tell you? What secrets would it reveal? And would it make for comfortable listening, or would there be a few home truths that need to be aired?

Web analytics is the study of the behaviour of website visitors. More specifically in a commercial context sense it refers to the use of data collected from a website to determine which aspects work best towards business objectives – or in short, how hard your website is actually working for you.

Depending on what your website offers visitors, it’s likely to be making a contribution to many different areas of your business – from sales and marketing to customer support, from community relations to recruitment. No-one questions the importance of spending time with people in these roles to ensure they’re equipped and trained, but how often is the website overlooked and left to its own devices in a way that you would never consider leaving your staff unattended?

The starting point is normally web traffic reports, collected from your web server, but to this can also be added email response rates, direct mail campaign statistics, sales and lead information and user performance data.

Look no further than Google Analytics if you want a powerful, but free, means of gathering and reviewing information. How long it stays a free tool remains to be seen, but while it is, Google Analytics (or a similar tool) should be a key component of your marketing strategy.

It puts your website on the couch and it lets you talk together freely and easily, starting off on the surface, but quickly digging deeper and deeper.

Which pages are proving most popular? How long are visitors spending on your site? Are key pages easy to find or buried beneath the mother of all crumb trails? Are people coming back to the site regularly? Which search phrases are generating the highest level of visits?

Too many organisations still fail to see their website as a living, (almost) breathing entity that needs constant care and attention. There’s no excuse for the ‘it’s up now and that’s all that matters’ approach. Your site can tell you plenty, if you know how to listen and make the time.

There seems to be a general dusting down of many websites at the moment, they’re being more carefully interrogated and rightly so.

Of course, how this information is interpreted will depend on what you’re expecting from your site. There will be a world a difference between a corporate communications driven site and an ecommerce site.

So, before you plump up the cushions and make your site comfortable on the couch, take some time to understand it, be clear about what it’s there for, what you’ve asked it to do and what it really should be doing. It’s only fair at the end of the day and it means you’ll be much better placed to understand what it tells you and respond appropriately.

You don’t have to be an expert. The sheer wealth of information available can be overwhelming, but if you focus on some of the key headlines to start with, you can make progress together.

The more you build your knowledge and understanding and the more you evolve the structure, content and functionality of your website, the harder your website will work for you.

Despite what some people might try to tell you. It’s not rocket science, just good principles of communication.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

Heavens above � a very public debate

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:33:14 +0000

Let me make one thing clear at the outset, I intend no offence to the personal beliefs and convictions of any individual.

But as the recession continues to bite and empty billboards start to appear on our streets, media companies must be thanking their lucky stars as a debate on the existence of God takes place in advertising space.

Following the highly controversial (depending on your point of view) British Humanist Association campaign proclaiming ‘There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ a new campaign, launched by the Christian Party claims ‘There definitely is a God, so join the Christian party and enjoy your life’.

What’s the big deal? Firstly there’s the question of free speech and how that plays into an advertising medium bound by its own rules and regulations. At first there was a suggestion that the Advertising Standards Authority would be asked to rule on the probable existence of God in deciding whether to uphold complaints from those offended by the Humanist ads. Fortunately it didn’t come to that, but it would have been a heck of a debate and interesting to see the ASA determining matters of religious doctrine.

But I think in a way much more interesting is the use of advertising as a medium for such a debate by a particular interest group. These campaigns can be seen as an innovative and legitimate use of the public media landscape to bring an issue to the forefront of the public mind and stimulate a debate.

It’s not the first time advertising has been used in this way, but it is possibly the first time that such a high profile debate has been sparked as a result.

Is this a good or bad thing? Does it make an issue seem tawdry or does it give it a sense of energy and importance?

To a point it is probably a reflection of the level to which advertising as a medium has penetrated our daily lives. The Government and public services use it, for example, to encourage us to stop smoking, do more exercise or be more tolerant of each other – so what’s the difference?

In some ways it’s actually quite refreshing to see something different and challenging; advertising that genuinely maybe stops you in your tracks and makes you think for a moment. And think more than just ‘mmmmm, I want one of those.’ Maybe in this time of economic downturn a little more soul searching might be no bad thing?

The key issue, it seems to me, is in the cost. While channels such as Facebook, blogs, websites, Twitter et al are a very democratising media that do give a voice to individual, bus advertising remains beyond the budget of many groups. So there is a risk that those with more money are able to use this to their advantage, the more money you have, the louder your voice – an old theme, but one which the Internet in all its many glories has made some considerable progress in addressing.

Here’s where the Internet may yet have an intriguing answer.

In this day and age when a collective of people can be mobilised and organised online to buy and manage a football team why not mobilise through social networking for a cause? If you could convince 3,500 people from a Facebook group each to pay a tenner you’d have a budget that could let you advertise your message. Whatever it might be.

Perhaps over the next few months we’ll see more issue-led and philosophy-based advertising as Facebook groups pool their resources and go public?

Could community-led advertising possibly be the Next Big Thing?

Posted by: Matt Forster

Down with predictors of beaconicity

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:25:43 +0000

The Local Government Association has issued a list of around 200 words that are to be banned as the worst offenders. These include ‘benchmarking’, ‘seedbed’ and ‘procure’ among others.

As an aside, it is interesting to see that even in this area the recession manages to make a Hitchcock-like appearance, sneaking in just when you least expect it – apparently in a time of recession it is all the more important that councils make it clear to people what they’re doing with their money.

There’s just no escaping it and I do wonder whether we need a new term for the practice of relating everything, no matter how random, back to the recession somehow.

It’s hard to see how anyone could object to simplifying language and being clearer about what’s meant. But this announcement and list of banned words (a reassuring reverse of the doublespeak in Orwell’s 1984?) possibly highlights a larger issue, which is this.

How often do organisations forget that their communications must be a conversation?

A conversation is two-way, it’s someone talking, but it’s also someone listening and it’s a chance for those roles to be reversed at various times during the dialogue.

An approach to communications which forgets this devastatingly simple and fundamentally important fact rapidly becomes like that stable of comedy, the English person abroad talking louder and slower but still in English and expecting to be understood.

We’ve all been bored to tears at some party or social occasion at some point by the person who comes over and has no interest in what we’ve got to say or what we think or even who we are. All they want to do is talk at us about what interests them, in the misguided belief that because it’s so utterly fascinating to them, how could anyone else possibly fail to be interested in the toilet habits of the Romans?

It’s easy enough to laugh dismissively at these two characters (maybe it’s one and the same person), but how comfortable is that laughter when your own communications are examined? How genuinely can you say that you are engaged in listening as well as talking, and how much effort to do you make to start conversations that are based on finding some shared ground on which to build connections?

Talking in a common language is a good start and the move by the LGA is to be applauded, providing it shows to have been more than just words and real action is taken.

But dialogue goes deeper than just the words themselves, and thought has to be given to how they’re used to create a conversation that establishes a genuine connection. And there is something in this story to prompt all organisations to look at the language they use and the way in which they talk – councils are by no means the only offenders in the impenetrable jargon camp.

Otherwise, like the bore at the party, you might as well be talking to yourself.

Posted by: Matt Forster

Love is not all you need (unfortunately)

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:48:17 +0000

How many times this year will we hear about the ‘sad demise of a well loved brand’? Personally, the fewer the better as far as I’m concerned, I’ve got no interest in doom mongering. But it is a phrase that was rolled out time and again just before Christmas last year, especially around the Woolworths story and I suspect that it unfortunately won’t be long before we hear it again.

When The Beatles, in a time of almost unprecedented optimism, sang about love, who would have dared to disagree? Performed live on television in 1967 to 26 countries and 400 million viewers it had a certain universal appeal.

Times are a little different now and any brand manager who finds themselves humming along to the undoubtedly catchy chorus in their head ought to stop and take stock pretty quickly.

Brands can be a wonderful thing, they can create emotional attachment that can be incredibly surprising at times. They can engender passionate views and they can produce loyalty of the kind that would make many a football supporter seem like a fair-weather fan.

Love is a big part of branding. The more your customers love you, the more loyal they’re likely to be, the more they’ll return and the more they’ll recommend you. Brands are all about relationships, that’s what they’re built on and it’s what sustains them.

But love for love’s sake is not enough. That love has to be backed up by value, by having something meaningful to offer. Sure, many of us are disappointed and saddened to see Woolworths vanish from the high street. Why? Because we don’t know where we’ll go to get our discount CDs, our lightbulbs and our pick and mix now? Nope. It’s because it is part of our memories, it’s been around for a long time and it represents a connection with the past. Do people feel the same about Xavvi? Hardly. Why not? Because it has not had time to embed itself in the popular, emotional landscape.

And that’s the point, love is great and when the times are good it may just be enough. But when the going gets tough, to stretch this music analogy maybe too far, what’s love go to do with it?

These ‘much loved’ brands will only survive if they continue to be relevant, if they offer enough value to enough people to create a sustainable model. I often wonder how many of those who publicly mourn the demise of the local shop do so sat at their computer doing their weekly shopping from the warmth of their kitchen.
A brand that relies on love alone risks becoming an anachronism, an outdated and irrelevant entity whose time is limited.

But the brand that can maintain the love while building a continual connection with its customers, reinventing itself if necessary, having a mid life crisis if it helps, will be the one to survive.

Look no further than Marks and Spencer. Not so long ago a prime example of a much loved, but rapidly outdated brand, like an aging favourite aunt. That it has turned its fortunes around has less to do with love and more to do with sound commercial decisions and exceptionally successful branding, all based on products and services that resonate with today’s shoppers.

Love is important, it makes the world go round and it helps build brands in every walk of life - charities, education, government and commercial.

But, so they tell us, love is something you have to work at every day. Otherwise you wake up one day and find the magic has gone.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

Status: Dom is relieved

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:40:16 +0000

Facebook’s announcement that it was to change its Terms Of Service (TOS) had pretty far reaching implications, to say the least.

In principle, under the altered TOS, the site - which has over 175 million users worldwide - would have then been in a position to own all data, even when a user deletes their account. Not only that but been able to sub-license the use of that content.

Surprise, surprise there was something of an outcry. And perhaps not surprisingly either, Mark Zuckerman, founder of the site, has apparently changed his mind.

But has the damage been done? Already there are whispers that Facebook has ‘sold out’, is ‘doing a Google’ and the site has only promised to change the terms while it resolves some of the issues raised by users.

Regardless of where Facebook decides to go next, the storm that has already broken should give everyone food for thought. Personally, right now, I couldn’t care less if Facebook has ownership of everything I’ve posted to my page. There’s nothing of any intellectual value to me on it.

But for thousands and millions of people who have posted photos, videos and music, the question is very different. And then there are the charity sites, education sites, business sites, whose owners invest a large amount of time and resources in providing information and materials that they would not want for one second to hand over to Facebook.

Perhaps there are some parallels here with the current economic climate. For years we were encouraged to ‘buy now and pay later’. Spend and damn the consequences. Well, they were right, we did buy then and we’re now paying later.

The last ten years has seen a huge rise in phenomenal free services, Hotmail with 1mb of space was pretty amazing in 1999, but since then there has been a tidal wave of free services encouraging us in one shape or form to upload data to the web, use services to share thoughts, ideas and memories, both personal and professional.

And the vast majority of the population has probably not given it much more thought. Get a Facebook page? Free? Share my photos? Free? Brilliant.

But this recent episode does go to show how vulnerable we may have made ourselves in the process, especially as more and more organisations and companies look to use the opportunities offered by these sites in their communications.

A case perhaps of upload now, pay later?

Posted by: Dom Aldred

Tomorrow�s world

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:27:52 +0000

The view that tomorrow’s world will have no place for the traditional daily newspaper is not new, with many agreeing that its demise is already well underway. Will our children ask, with wonder in their eyes, whether we really read inky sheets of paper without moving images, instant updates or the facility to instantly feedback.

But how many of us in communications are preparing for the possibility of a paperless future?

The popularity of Facebook, Bebo, MySpace, LinkedIn, Hi5, Tagged, Xing and Twitter, along with findings in a recent ChildWise report, suggest that paperless communication is already a reality for the next generation.

ChildWise found that a third of four to 16-year-olds surveyed named the internet as the one thing they couldn’t do without, compared to a fifth who prized TV above all.

The report demonstrated that the average child spends 1.7 hours a day on-line – with one in six spending more than three hours on the web. Half of all teenagers asked spent more than two hours a day on social networking sites.

A ChildWise spokesperson described those surveyed as ‘a generation abandoning print and paper’. This raises the question that if our future audience is abandoning traditional forms of communicating, should we be looking at doing the same?

I’m not suggesting that there should be an immediate end to issuing news releases to the local paper, or the next hard copy run of your annual report needs to be cancelled. However, it is worth keeping digital in mind when planning communications - as one Labour Party communications think tank said, you’re not communicating with the community if you’re not online.

It’s difficult to predict where it will end. History teaches us that there is always something bigger and better around the corner. However, perhaps we need to ensure that we have mastered the last ‘big thing’ before we can move onto the next one.

Posted by: Kate Galloway

Is anyone hard to reach?

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:20:13 +0000

It’s something we hear time and again. How will a campaign connect with the ‘hard to reach’?

What’s usually meant by this phrase is the very old or young, the socially disadvantaged, those with ethnic backgrounds or from rural communities.
The implication in many cases is that these groups deliberately distance themselves, refuse to listen or be engaged.

But here’s the thing. If you asked them, would they consider themselves ‘hard to reach’ or would they be more likely to say that the service providers are actually the ones who are hard to reach?

Speak to someone in the marketing department of a credit card company, a mobile phone manufacturer, a sportswear retailer, a local football club. Do they find these people ‘hard to reach’? Not really.

When someone calls your home during dinner for a telephone survey you’re probably pretty hard to reach. Why? Because the person at the other end of the telephone isn’t offering you anything of tangible value and isn’t connecting with you on your terms. So you politely decline and hang up.

People are only as hard to reach as you make them. The secret is not complicated in principle.

First, make sure you have something to communicate that’s of genuine relevance to these groups. Not what you think they might want or might need, but something that is actually of real value.

Secondly, communicate in a way that acknowledges any conversation is a two-way process. Talking someone’s language isn’t just about translating copy; it’s about style, tone, intent, what you say and how you say it.

Now I’m not trying to pretend there aren’t significant challenges out there and I’m not trying to oversimplify the solution, but in some ways it really is that basic, at heart.

Look at the brands that do connect with your hard to reach groups, what can you learn from the way they succeed?

If you’ve got something of value and you communicate in a way that genuinely seeks to engage with people on their terms, you’ll find they’re easy to reach.

Posted by: Dom Aldred

Blurring the boundaries

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:02:18 +0000

Every week seems to bring a new story about a public servant going online to discredit themselves and the organisation they represent by making ill thought out comments on social networking sites.

From teachers maligning students and their parents on Facebook to a senior manager at a PCT telling people that she ‘bull****s’ for a living on Friends Reunited, each incident undermines trust in the practitioners themselves but also the organisations and professions that they represent.

There is undoubtedly added scrutiny on those holding publicly funded positions. While those working for privately owned companies are no doubt guilty of the same offences, media coverage is less likely to be of public interest, unless of course you are the CEO of a national concern – who could forget Gerald Ratner?

These stories highlight how social networking sites have further blurred the boundaries between work and play, encouraging people to reveal their outside work selves on a format which can be viewed by those with whom they have a professional relationship. And as the staff Christmas party can sometimes show - never the twain should meet.

Without a doubt, the majority of employees who have been caught out in this way will be regretful, ashamed, fearful for their career prospects and will probably never make the same mistake again.

Public reaction is divided. Some will be outraged by the thoughtless confessions of public servants, whose wages we pay, others will cringe at their foolishness but wonder how someone moaning about work – a regular occurrence at the pub - makes the national newspapers.

What is certain is that these revelations undermine public trust in the organisations concerned, confirming negative perceptions of people whose salaries they pay. Staff are an organisation’s greatest ambassadors and it is ever more important that this point is understood.

Obviously, we’re not condoning a state where the thought police are in control. However, all staff need to be aware of the worth of their opinions – which clearly increases with position – and need to be considerate and sensible about where they make their views heard.

Facebook, Twitter and Friends Reunited is not the pub. Thoughts shared here are not confined to a select group of friends – but are available to the world as an indelible record.

With the continuing popularity of these forms of communication, there is evidence that more needs to be done to brief staff on the reach and dangers of social networking and encourage responsibility and professionalism even in the home?

Or perhaps, as the definition of acceptable workplace conduct continues to be re-written (just think of the increasingly obsolete neck-tie) will Facebook confessions become the rule rather than the exception?

Posted by: Matt Forster

Good design makes good sense

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:47:51 +0000

The editor of a national design trade publication recently put forward the opinion that many local authorities aren’t consistent in their approach to design – even going so far as to say that some ‘don’t get’ the discipline’s importance.

Clearly design has always been of great concern to the private sector, which is competing for customers and has traditionally used design to help it stand out from the crowd, create profile, boost sales and ultimately increase profits.

Local authorities have not traditionally had the same drivers.

However, this doesn’t mean that they ‘don’t get’ design or don’t need good design to help them stand out. It just means that heads of communication face a difficult job when making the case for investment in good design during increasingly difficult financial times, when a common perception is ‘Well, that’s pretty – but it’s not important’.

Even though local authorities do not need to use design to compete for customers in quite the same way, it is ever more important that they use design to help their messages stand out. As pressure increases on councils to sell services, such as leisure, the commercial value of design becomes more critical. At the same time it is also an objective which gets harder every day as we attempt to communicate with a public suffering from communications overload. Did you know, for example, that the average person receives a whopping 3,000 advertising messages a day?

So how does good design help?

Good design communicates information and ideas, bad design gets in the way of communicating.

Good design is boundless in this communication – it speaks to everyone, regardless of age, race, gender or nationality, which is of particular importance in today’s multi-cultural society.

Good design speaks volumes about the services you provide. We are all becoming more sophisticated readers of design, with individuals making judgments on the perceived quality of a service, based on its presentation. High quality, consistent design is no substitute for high quality, consistent services, but there is no doubt that a combination of the two produces the best results. Take up of services increases, as does positive perceptions and overall customer satisfaction.

In a nutshell, good design makes sense.

Posted by: Darren Richardson

Does the public really like being consulted?

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:44:33 +0000

When a hospital trust seeking public opinion on its proposals to reform health services was recently labelled an unaccountable quango, you’d be forgiven for briefly entertaining a desire for the fall of democracy.

In an ideal world, public consultation is a way of arriving at an informed decision. It is a two way process involving sharing, thinking, listening and responding.

Instead, it is all too often a one way process, with members of the public failing to take part, or if they do, failing to give their opinion on the issue at hand.

The above response may provide us with a clue as to why this happens. The disgruntled resident went on to say that the trust was more concerned about delivering ‘efficient services’ (possibly referring to cost effective services) than improving the standard of patient care.

Instead of considering the proposals (which gave good account of their contribution to improving public health) and sharing a constructive response, informing the debate and potentially the decision, the respondent decided to ignore them completely and launch an ill informed attack on the organisation.

Despite denying themselves a view, in all likelihood this person will feel they have contributed to the debate and will therefore feel let down by the consultation process when the final decision fails to take their words into consideration.

Although some people really do consider the proposals and provide relevant feedback, the point of the consultation is too often missed and the process is instead used as an opportunity to criticize.

Why is this?

There are a number of reasons why people possibly fail to engage properly with consultations.

People are used to having important choices made for them. It is possible that they do not trust their own judgment or think they don’t have anything worthwhile to say.

Public opinion isn’t always solicited consistently. Many important decisions are made without their input – so that when they get the opportunity to have their say, it is not restricted to the proposals but is seen as a release valve for collective bile.

The public tars all consultation with the same brush. Just before the trust, mentioned above, was seeking opinions, a major local government consultation ended in a publicly unpopular decision. Does this reinforce the belief that all consultations are an exercise in transparency and the decision has already been made?

There are too many consultations. As people were considering the future of health services, they were also being asked to take part in a schools consultation. How can we expect people to decide the future of government, health and education, all at the same time?

Perhaps we need a consultation.

Posted by: Jennie Whitell

All aboard the social network

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:39:03 +0000

The fact that news of a passenger flight landing in New York’s Hudson River was broken by social networking sites asks all of us involved in communications whether we can afford to ignore them.

Using a combination of Facebook and Twitter – news of the crash was communicated quickly and to a large audience before it hit TV and newspaper headlines.

For those of you who don’t already know, here are the facts. Twitter is a free social networking and micro blogging service that allows users to send and receive other user’s updates, known as tweets. Updates are displayed on the user’s profile page and delivered to other users who have signed up. Twitter has been around for a few years, gradually building its profile. It received more than 5m visitors in September 2008 and looks set to break into mainstream popular culture.

As the guardians of accuracy and truth, traditional media outlets have questioned the value of information reported in this way. However, a leading charity has stated that Twitter ‘proved the most successful tool in disaster response scenarios’.
Like all issues which attract points of view set at polar opposites, the truth of the matter probably lies somewhere in between.

Not for one minute are we suggesting that Twitter is set to replace print and broadcast media this very moment. However, clearly there is a role for social networking for all of us who are concerned with reaching out to as many people as possible.

I can see a particular use for it when responding quickly, controlling online criticism and protecting reputation. The digital age, unlike traditional media, no longer affords organisations the right of reply. The private sector is already taking measures into its own hands – with major companies such as PepsiCo and Ford using Twitter to talk to their customers directly – to diffuse potentially damaging situations.

From Stephen Fry ranting about computer software to local authorities announcing election results in real time, Twitter has its wings and 2009 could be the year we see it fly. The challenge now for organisations is to understand how the medium can be applied and do so in creative and positive ways.

Posted by: Sharron Ashurst